I am Spirit, formless and free;

<blockquote>

<p>It's a <em>state of mind.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it's not a state of mind. It's just a claim, <em>influenced</em> by all the hyperbole and mythologizing Allen has heard about art. It is not borne out in his many writings or his photos. This is about the many things he's read and heard about the wonders of "Art" with a capital A. It's completely superficial, simplistic, and is honestly really a bore.</p>

<p>Sanity is only a state of mind, after all!</p>

<p>I'm trying to decide if I should invest any further brain power in this thread. I find it rather amusing, really. Those who believe their creative process can be completely free of knowledge and precedent are unlikely to be swayed by rational argument, since, clearly, they are not rational thinkers. (Before choosing to be offended, look up the definition of rational.) This is NOT intended as a criticism, simply an acknowledgement that rationality and irrationality are incompatible. Creativity, as it relates to art, need not be absolutely rational or logical (it frequently is neither), but it does not and cannot occur in a vacuum. In order for any form of expression to be considered art, it must be capable of communicating something, whether a thought, a feeling, a memory, etc., from one being to another, and of being perceived, if not clearly or fully understood, by the receiver. This presupposes a level of common understanding between the originator and the receiver, upon which this communication is based. Thus, the impossibility of art in a vacuum. Even if the sole beneficiary of the art is the artist alone, he/she will still be speaking to his or her own perceptions and understanding, which is manifestly NOT a vacuum if the artist can conceive his/her own art. Truly nonsensical expression cannot count as communication (hence as art), with oneself or with others, since, by definition, it is devoid of meaning. In the instant that art obtains meaning (or, the ability to communicate from artist to viewer/receiver), it becomes bound to and founded upon some commonly understood precedent. This remains true even if that precedent exists only at the subconscious or sub-cognitive level for either participant. OK, now I'm done. (Picture me folding up my soap box and stowing it away, until the next time...)</p>

<p>David, please post a rational photograph to this thread. Thanks.</p>

<p>OK, one last spasm for Julie: Please note how the artist has so carefully manipulated the source components in this composite image, so as to maintain a consistent DoF, lighting, and seamless connections between the original component parts. Clearly this artist is very skillful in the use of post processing tools, and in selecting the subjects that comprise this composite. I find it to be impressive in both its technical and artistic execution, and is clearly the product of much insight, effort and practice.</p><div></div>

<p>How is that picture rational?</p>

<p>Supriyo - "The problem is the extreme that you are proposing, to throw away all and everything that our ancestors came up with and follow a new direction, as a principle"</p>

<p>Allen responding to Supriyo: "Really, is that what Im saying? What Im saying is that it should not be a burden to endlessly follow....we should put aside sometimes and let our imagination take us on a different path."</p>

<p>What Allen is saying, then, is that all and everything preceding us should not be a burden to endlessly follow and that sometimes we should put that all aside and let our imagination take us on a different path. That path produces in him a feeling that he poetically describes as 'formless and free'. Can we be generous enough to just give him that?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did not say the subject or source images of Julie's composite are rational. Far from it. The knowledge, insight, vision, and technical skill required to execute and deliver this heavily manipulated, even constructed, image are absolutely rational. (This goes back to that <em>Theory of Representation</em> class I was forced to take for a Master of Architecture degree. Reference Rene Magritte and <em>This is Not a Pipe</em>.) I noted just a small part of the rational and technical qualities in my post. This is the gist of the whole discussion: That being creatively "free" to see and capture an artistic vision does not translate to freedom from all of the other stuff that empowers and prepares us to do so, and to communicate that vision. (I'm gonna lock the soap box in my trunk now.)</p>

<p>The lure that motivates and guides my overall aim and all of my editing decisions is as described in all my earlier posts. The way that every part is used is dictated by 'listening' to that what that part demands from me. The content guides its own use; I listen. That I am a good craftsperson is irrelevant to my submission to the needs to which I submit that crafting ability. The framing, post-shooting, and in response to where that 'listening' takes me, is what you see in my composites. That last framing is me 'meeting' that strangeness that I have found. And I realize that you will have no idea what that last sentence means, and will probably be unwilling to try to understand it. Oh well.</p>

<p>I suspect, but would never presume to assert, that all photographers listen to what they find in their pictures when they sit down to edit. The lure to their decisions, however, is beyond my presumptions.</p>

<p>Photographs are neither rational nor irrational. Given that, whether or not the motivation of their button-clicking maker was rational or spiritual is a private matter; ascribing it to the photograph is just hand-waving, or wishful thinking.</p>

<p>Julie,<br>

Just think about it. If you were a cavewoman with a computer and a camera, would your content have guided you in the exact same way that they do now?</p>

<p>I don't know. That's the point. I am open. I listen.</p>

<p>Julie,<br>

Why do your birds always have their feet on the ground, never flying? Isn't that your choice?</p>

<p>Supriyo, you're badgering about an obvious point that everyone concedes. Except that it doesn't always feel that way, influenced, doesn't feel all wrapped up and logical. Have you no sensitivity? To what end is the condescending praise of a David, his knowingness delivered with a patronizing little pat on the head.</p>

<p>What is it that Allen pushes out of the way to get beyond? You want to contemplate that for a moment? We have no idea, on that we are all uncomprehending and that alone should be humbling when recognizing our own defeats. Are you so secure in your adaptation that your powers of logic have never been defeated by the cold, unintended consequences of your own behavior? The problem is, you're not hearing that Allen, and Julie perhaps, write about how they feel during their creative process. Of what use, however well intended, is logic? It just isn't respectable to endlessly drive home a point, seems egotistical and cruel. What you seem to be doing is to just crush inspiration with logic that everyone agrees with anyway - including Allen, to some extent Julie too or so I gather.</p>

<p>I asked a humble question, in my quest to understand. The question was not directed at you. What are you, a policeman? Why not let Julie answer and help us understand her point of view.</p>

<p>Julie,<br>

I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am trying to understand what you feel, no matter how much Charles W yells at everybody. </p>

<p>Because I don't like to see bullying going on about someone's declared 'beliefs.' Why don't you talk about you're own inspiration and enthusiasms and where they come from instead of probing Julie uncomprehendingly.</p>

<p>Fred, are you happy? You sound like an old crab.</p>

<p>Thanks Phil. I now love you.</p>

<p>Supriyo I will love you too if you agree with me. And apology to David for what I said about him.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You know, Charles W, the only one bullying here would be you. Just look at your last three posts. In any of my posts, did anyone ever see me condescending towards anyone, mocking or disrespecting anyone, or calling names, or yelling? If questioning one's ideas and beliefs is bullying, you don't live in the real world. Nobody is obligated to respond to my questions.</p>

<p>Feel free to ignore me if you feel I am bothering you.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Supriyo I will love you too if you agree with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That is the bullying!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Julie,<br /> Why do your birds always have their feet on the ground, never flying? Isn't that your choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've noticed the same thing, Supriyo. </p>

<p>Just my own interpretation but think along the lines of taxidermy. That's the mojo IMO that makes Julie's images so compelling. There's a unique weirdness I sense on how she views the world and expresses it the way she does with the bird composites. It makes her work unique in that respect. Even if she included birds suspended in air to look as if flying, I'ld still get the same feeling from it.</p>

<p>I doubt Julie was going for the taxidermy effect and I hope she isn't offended by my interpretation but that's the whole point about being free to express one's self without concern over being judged on how others may interpret the work. If Julie decided to pander to what looks good to others, there's no freedom and thus no uniqueness. It just becomes a copy of other's idea on what looks good or what's considered meaningful expression through art.</p>

<p>I hope Julie continues to freely explore and push the boundaries in her depiction of birds. I feel there's a need for more of the beautifully weird in photography.</p>

<p>[laughing ... and, Tim, you're <em>there</em> ... ]</p>

<p>I was so tempted to post something incomprehensible like a Rimbaud poem ("Il y a une horloge qui ne sonne pas / Il y a une fondrière avec un nid de bêtes blanches ... " ] but that would probably be too much fun.</p>

<p>Thank you Charles, Phil and Tim -- and Supriyo for being the perfect straight man.</p>

<p>"Just think about it"? You called for her to think, not to express her feelings. </p>

<p>"Just think about it. If you were a cavewoman with a computer and a camera, would your content have guided you in the exact same way that they do now?<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Julie, if it's any consolation I do think your birds are alive looking enough that I would begin to think I might have spotted one moving if I didn't pay close enough attention.</p>

<p>I once asked a taxidermist if I could photograph some of his work in his shop and he refused on the grounds that it might hurt some of his human customer's reputation due to ridicule from my posting the images online.</p>

<p>Ah! sweet paradox! The animals are more alive than the humans that killed them. Julie, I'm sure you'll find an ornately worded poem or quote that is more cerebral in expressing what I just said. Be gentle, please.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's a unique weirdness I sense on how she views the world and expresses it the way she does with the bird composites.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Tim, thanks for the interpretation of Julie's work. I was genuinely curious about it, and wondered how she manages to let her scene components lead her to it without making any conscious choices.<br /> <br /> - "Feeling formless and free"<br /> I have long accepted thats how Julie feels and that I am fine with it (see page 14 of this thread). However it was never very clear by reading the posts, that this is just about 'feelings'. if it was purely about somebody's feeling, then we would not have any analogy with 1940's rocket technology and other 'tangible' stuff' introduced by Allen. I think those who talk about their 'feelings' have the responsibility to make it clear to others that it is their dream, not the reality. Otherwise, like any 'real' idea, they are subject to debates and counter arguments.</p>

<p>Supriyo, I do believe everyone has the capacity to be creative operating from both the right and left side of the brain, just not simultaneously. It can be done but it takes a lot of concentration to keep thoughts organized, at least it does for me. And yes, I've Googled that this is a myth. I'm just using it here to explain a complex human condition.</p>

<p>In discussions of this sort it's often not clearly delineated from which side is being referenced when expressing intentions. The best way I can explain and understand it is to compare it to my high school days learning to play the trombone from sheet music where I had to rely on and cling desperately to analytical thought using math to understand time and key signatures, a whole from a half note, octaves and chords. Makes music seem quite simple and easy to remember starting out.</p>

<p>I never learned to improvise in order to play a free form jazz solo on the trombone because I was very dependent on that way of understanding and playing music. That's the left side of the brain where scientists get inspiration using thought experiments as Einstein did. He still had to come up with the math to make it real.</p>

<p>I started just listening to and<em> feeling</em> a lot of jazz solos and melodies that inspired me to where I was able to scat sing to them without sheet music and in key. No off notes. That's the right side of the brain. No analytical structure to get in the way. I use my exuberance created from what I was hearing to drive my feelings to make my voice make the sounds and not worry about off notes and broken rhythm. It just flowed freely and I didn't stop to analyze why.</p>

<p>Another example of these two ways of interpreting reality analytically verses intuitively that got way too close to home was when I was home schooling my son on math back in the '90's. I tried to explain the difference of the concept of the number line verses the representational symbols of each number to my son and nearly went mad because he just couldn't separate picture language from actual objects that are counted. He counted the picture symbol of the number as an individual object to be counted no matter what the number read. The number line got my son to view numbers as individual pictures but not as a series of increasing amounts. I think I had the same problem when I was his age.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now sanity has become the straight jacket.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wasn't that what Blake was about? And after WWI, Also the Surrealists, Dada, etc.? Art movements that were reacting from the horrors of WWI that came about as a result of the so-called"rationalists", at least in the thinking of those artists? Of course what I just said only applies if one assumes sanity=rational:)</p>